telephoto lens for low light

[tkinnj]

Hi,

After reading many of threads, a common theme is "investing in glass is the long term investment, not investing in the body." I'm hearing and becoming a believer. I've been waffling between the nikon d90 and waiting to see what the canon 7d looks like when it's generally available, but now I'm thinking about scaling back to maybe the nikon d5000 or the Canon T1i and invest in a better set of lenses.

One of the major pushes for this is all of the kids pictures taken in a dim auditorium. I'd like to get a zoom that could do 200 or 300 well in low light.

My question is: Could you provide some guidance on zooms that would work well in low light, preferably without breaking the bank?? Understanding where both brands, canon/nikon, fall in this arena will probably sway my decision.

Thanks,

Tom

[kirbinster]

Fast glass equals large dollars, just no way around that. You can get a Nikon 55-200 VR lens for around $200, but it is not fast. You could get the fast Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR but that will set you back close to $2,000. So, the question becomes do you really need the fast lens, or can you push the ISO some. Both the D90 and D5000 have a nice CMOS sensor that can comfortably shoot at ISO 1600 or higher with very little noise. In the 300mm range the Nikon 70-300 VR is a very nice sharp light weight lens that can be had used for about $400, but it is not fast either.

[mattdm]

Also worth exploring 3rd-party options — the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is about $800. It's nowhere near as beautiful as the Nikon or Canon versions, but will do the job.

[nathanbarlow]

I understand that the sigma 70-200 is rather slow on the autofocus, which is why/how is it much cheaper. If speed of focus isnt an issue, no worries...

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by nathanbarlow

I understand that the sigma 70-200 is rather slow on the autofocus, which is why/how is it much cheaper. If speed of focus isnt an issue, no worries...

It's also optically weaker, no question. And there's probably more quality control issues, etc. However, it's still a very good lens.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by tkinnj

One of the major pushes for this is all of the kids pictures taken in a dim auditorium. I'd like to get a zoom that could do 200 or 300 well in low light.

My question is: Could you provide some guidance on zooms that would work well in low light, preferably without breaking the bank??

You're asking for three things that don't go together: fast, long, and low cost. You're also tossing in zoom and fast-focusing just to make it worse.

On the Canon side, to get a lens that does all this, you'll be spending more than four figures. There's no way around that. A 70-200 f/2.8L USM (IS or non-IS) may be the only lens that fits your description. The non-IS version is $1300, the IS version is about $2000.

But if you're willing to give up the ability to zoom, and go with a prime, and you're willing to give a little on the focal length, there are few less expensive options: the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM (~$440) has been dubbed "Mr. Basketball" on the dpreview Canon Lens forum. There's also the EF 100mm f/2 USM ($430). If you're willing to spend a bit more for reach, the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM is $840. USM stands for "Ultrasonic Motor"--it's a fast, silent autofocus motor and is typically what you need to get precise autofocus on a fast-moving target.

The Nikon equivalent to USM is AF-S. And the only fast primes that have it in their lineup are a 35mm f/1.8, a 50mm f/1.4 and a $5000 200mm f/2. Most of their zooms come equipped with AF-S, though. But with a 70-200 f/2.8, there's no option to get an unstabilized one for less money, there's only the VR version for about $2000. And, of course, any lens that isn't AF-S (or Sigma HSM) won't autofocus on a D5000.

For what you're talking about? I think Canon may be the better way to go, or at least upgrading your body choice on the Nikon side to a D80/D90.

[jnelson]

I think if you were to get a Nikon D80 or 90 body, you would be able to use the older Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 which has about the same optical quality of the newer 70-200, but without 10mm on the short end and the VR feature. That said you also drop about half the price, there is one locally that is near new for $850. If you go that route I would suggest a monopod, it will help stabilize the long lens. Here is a link to some info on that lens Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D

[eric.carson]

You know tkinnj - We are in the exact same predicamant! Kids who move fast in the worst lighting possible!

After getting the wife to unshackle the bank account and remove all the deadfalls and booby-traps, I had my eyes on the 7D, what I consider to be the first pro-sumer APS-C camera with more Pro than Comsumer! However that meant with my budget (guarenteed death if I go over....) I could only get the body only and 50mm 1.8 prime. Not good. I plan on getting the T1i, Sigmas 70-200 2.8, Canon's 50mm 1.8, and EF-S 70-300 something....

The plan is when my wife sees a great photo, the shackles will let up again... Problem is my good shot/bad shot ratio right now (with my Panasonic DMC-FZ30) is around 1/1x10^9999 and gettig worse...

[inkista]

Originally Posted by eric.carson

... I plan on getting the T1i, Sigmas 70-200 2.8, Canon's 50mm 1.8, and EF-S 70-300 something....

I'd say hold off on getting the EF-S 55-250 IS / EF 70-300 IS USM if you're getting the 70-200 f/2.8. There's a lot of overlap there in function. Unless you really need a smaller/lighter slower lens for travel or something. SLR lenses are special purpose tools, not general ones. That list is like one screwdriver and two hammers. I'd also rethink if you're planning on shaving off $100 by getting the body only instead of the kit. You have no wide-to-normal coverage, and with a crop body like the T1i, everything's going to be longer than you might like. The 50/1.8 II can sometimes be too long to be comfortable for portrait use in a small room. Having the 18-55 IS might not give you low light capability, but you can work close in with it and/or cover a wide angle of view. Most vacation snapshot photos of landscapes and portraits outside can be done with an 18-55 kit lens.